Re: [bcn2004] Fw: HITTITE-TURKISH
Dear Timur Kocaoglu,
I am afraid you are very mistaken. First of all, when somebody wants to create a word for himself in the form "WATER", he does not particularly care whether he is sourcing correct Turkish or not. His interest is to gain a word to English or another European language for the "water" concept. Evidently he could not use the Turkish word "SU" for "water" because it would not be easy to camouflage although they did use Turkish "SU" for "SEA" meaning "DENIZ" in Turkish. So they had to use another Turkish expression that still means the same thing. In Turkish, one of the functions of "SU"(water) is "to wash" that is, "YU EDER" meaning "it does wash" or "it does clean". Additionally, he is defining something that "does' someting. In this case it is "water" (SU) which "does washing" or "is used in washing". Furthermore, he is using "a riddle" format,. in other words, he says in a riddle form that "this thing is something that does washing" (i.e., yu eder). It is very much the same as saying "TEMIZ EDER", "PAK EDER", "AK EDER", "YIKAR" without giving or mentioning the name "SU". This is so logical, especially when you want to make a word out of a Turkish expression and you want to hide its Turkishness readily. In actuality, the "EDER" part is used just for linguistic wrapping (if I may use the term, "kundak bezi") the word for the main concept. They have already used the Turkish word SU for SEA. But if they had done the same for ordinary "water" then they would have been known as using Turkish word "SU" directly which would be evident to all and it would not be in their best interest. I think on the part of the anagrammatizer, it was a brilliant idea to use Turkish "YU ETER" for water". This way it was very easy to hide it.
Additionally, what you do not see or ignore to see is the fact that the words: "English "water" and West Germanic "wasser", Greek "hudor", old Indic "udan", Russian "voda", Gothic "wato" and others such as "watar" and "wazzer" go back to "*aud-", "*ued-", "*ud-" (water)" they al have "Turkish word "YU" or "YUV" in them. After all, letter "U" is vocalized as "YU". How do you know that this letter "U" (YU) is not Turkish "YU" or "YUV" meaning "to wash" but rather a totally different word meaning "water"? In these words I see the following, consider the fact that W = UU, VV, YY, or any combination of U, V and Y. and similarly, V=Y=U and U is vocalized as "YU":
English "WATER" from Turkish (Tr.): "yu eter";
Germanic "WASSER" from Tr. "yash eter";
Greek "HUDOR" from Tr. "yu-idor" (yu- eder):
Old Indic "UDAN" from Tr. "yu eden";
Russian "VODA" from Tr. "yudu" (yu'du, yikamadi, temizlemedi, yu etmedi);
Gothic "WATO" from Tr. "yu'du" or "yu adu, yu adi);
and your so-called "*aud-", "*ued" and "*ud-" (water) all have Turkish "YU" in it. Please take note of them!
These are just like the Latin word "AQUA" meaning "water"which is a misnomer. It is actually a Turkish word describing the "flowing" aspect of "water", that is, in Turkish "AKUYO" (akiyor). With this in mind, please consider the Latin word"AQUAEDUCTUS" meaning "an aquaduct", that is, a 'water conveyor" is from Turkish expression "SU AKUTUCUDU"meaning "it is a water conveyor" or "it is water carrier". This you will see clearly, when "AQUAEDUCTUS" is rearranged letter-by-letter as "SU-AQUTUCADE" which is nothing but the restructured and disguised form of the Turkish expression "SU AKUTUCUDU". Thus it is seen that Latin word "AQUA" meaning "water" is not a truthful definition and it is from Turkish word "akuyor". I hope wou will examine this and respond on it. Please check it very carefully!
"In several world languages, the words for water has the dental fricative sound
of "s" and "t" like the Turkish word "su" (water). In some languages though, it seems that the fricative consonants of "s" and "t" has been dropped and only the vowel "u" is left after a long process of changes such as the Chitrali (a language spoken in the Pamir area of northern Pakistan) "u" for water." Polat Kaya: If what you say correct, than add the letter "S" to the front of the above given Indo-European words, then you will most likely end up in the Turkish word "SU +". Even the Chitrali word "u" for "water" becomes Turkish "SU". I wander why did they drop the "S" or "T"?
Dear Timur, it is not a matter of dropping "S" or "T", it is a matter of how the languages have been man-handled as I showed you in above examples. Consonants make the "skeleton" (the back bone) of words, yet vowels add the "flesh" to them. When one breaks the "bones", then permanent distorsions are bound to take place in words, just like body structures of humans.
In concluding, I say you are mistaken thinking that in the present day Turkish you would not use a definition for "water" (SU) in the way that these European linguists have done. By thinking along the line of "correct" Turkish, you are limiting yourself. Those who use Turkish to come up with words for artificially made up languages, do not care about your "correct" Turkish diction. They are only interested in easy and disguiseable word making. He is not using Turkish as spoken in the present day Turkish Universities or everyday Turkish as spoken in present day Istanbul or Ankara, but rather Turkish as used in the ancient Turkish towns and villages. Hence he does not care about the "correct" Turkish.
Best wishes to you and to all,
TIMUR KOCAOGLU wrote:
Dear Polat Kaya,Your suggestion of "YU-ETER" (YIKAR) is not possiple in Turkish language,because as you point out "Turkish YU" already means "to wash".The Turkish auxiliary verb "et- (etmek = to do)" only comes after the the nounssuch as "gözet- < göz+et-" (meaning "to watch" from "göz" meaning "eye" andthe auxiliary verb "et-" meaning "to do").Since Turkish already has "yuv- (yuvmak)" as a verb stem, there is no needto add "et-" after that verb stem. "Yuv-" already means to "wash" and it hasalso the form "yuvar" (it washes). Therefore, your suggestion of "yu+etar"is grammatically not possible in Turkish language!In light of the above explanation, your initial suggestion of"Water = yuater < yu+etar" is also wrong and is not possible!English "water" and West Germanic "wasser", Greek "hudor", old Indic "udan",Russian "voda", Gothic "wato" and others such as "watar" and "wazzer" goback to "*aud-", "*ued-", "*ud-" (water).In several world languages, the words for water has the dental fricative soundof "s" and "t" like the Turkish word "su" (water). In some languages though,it seems that the fricative consonants of "s" and "t" has been dropped and onlythe vowel "u" is left after a long process of changes such as the Chitrali (a languagespoken in the Pamir area of northern Pakistan) "u" for water.When I was very young living in Pashawar city in Pakistan, we had a maid whowas from Chitral and he also spoken Chitrali. He taught me several phrasesin Chitrali. I still remember the following phrase in Chitrali:"U angi, shepik jebi" ("water drink, meal eat" = Drink water, eat meal!).Sincerely,Timur
He is describing for you two different concepts:, that is, "drink water" and "eat meal" which has noting to do with the concept of "water" (SU).
tntr@... 16.07.2005 06:32:10 >>>Dear Tonyukuk Kagan,You are absolutely write in identifying "water" with Turkish "YU" meaning "to wash" Water is used in "washing". When the word WATER, where the bogus letter W = Y+U, makes the word "YUATER", is the rearranged "YU-ETAR, it is the Turkish expression "YU-ETER" (YIKAR) meaning "it washes" which is a riddled way of describing 'SU' (water). I have known this relationship for some time but did not have the time to write about it. You did it and I congradulate you for it. This is another Turkish expression that has been abducted into English.Best wishes to all,Polat Kaya